Smith v. McPherson

78 Ga. 84
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 21, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 78 Ga. 84 (Smith v. McPherson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. McPherson, 78 Ga. 84 (Ga. 1886).

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

E. H. McPherson foreclosed a' landlord’s lien ag st Robert Gresham, and execution issued thereon and was levied on tenant’s property, which was sold, and the money was in the hands of the constable. E. W. Smith placed an execution in his favor against Gresham in the constable’s hands, and claimed the money. Smith then, as creditor, filed a counter-affidavit, contesting the claim of the landlord, McPherson. The court dismissed the counter-affidavit as coming too late, and this is the error assigned in this court.

If the counter-affidavit had been filed before levy of the execution issued upon the landlord’s foreclosure of his lien for advances and supplies, and before the sale of the tenant’s property, this execution would then be mesnc process, under the decision of this court in 65 Ga. 444, and Cosgrave vs. Mitchell, decided at February term, 1885 (74 Ga. 824). If the property be sold before the interposition of the counter-affidavit, then the process is final. 69 Ga. 736 ; 34 Ga. 180. The creditor, under section 1991 of the code, could hot interpose a counter-affidavit if the debtor could not, and the debtor could not after sale of his property after foreclosure and under exeecution issued thereon, but the creditor must look to the money. 47 Ga. 643; 73 Ga. 238. The plaintiff in error should have contested with the landlord as to the money upon rule against the officer who held it, and he could, in that proceeding, have shown anything that entitled him to the money as fully as he could in any issue raised on his counter-affidavit.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bowman v. Quick
126 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Palmer Tire Co. v. Maxwell Bros. Furniture Co.
107 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Harris v. Houston
179 S.E. 645 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Merritt
179 S.E. 655 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Finn v. Reese
137 S.E. 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Gardner v. Parker
124 S.E. 181 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Ford v. Tifton Guano Co.
87 S.E. 274 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Paris v. Citizens Banking Co.
32 S.E. 141 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 Ga. 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mcpherson-ga-1886.